Loading...

Martin Luther - Lesson 11

The Bondage of the Will

Theology of the cross assumes bondage and moves to freedom.

Gordon Isaac
Martin Luther
Lesson 11
Watching Now
The Bondage of the Will

De Servo Arbitrio or The Bound Will

I. The Circumstances under which it was written

A. Originally, Luther and Erasmus were buddies.

1. Erasmus pressed to reform the church's financial and intellectual follies.

2. Diatribe on The Freedom of the Will - Erasmus comes out against Luther (Erasmus's friends did not approve)

B. Events of 1525 Luther was a busy man and he was distracted by much before refuting Erasmus

1. January 1525 - Book against Carlshdat

2. Next, Luther had to put together his lectures on Deuteronomy so that the printers do not take a hit.

3. Later this year, Peasants Revolt in Wittenburg

4. Luther also gets married this year.

C. Pastors call for Luther's response

D. The writing and publishing of The Bondage of the Will

II. The Rhetoric of the Exchange

A. Erasmus calls for prudence.

B. Luther insists on assertion. As a Christian it is our job to assert

Discuss pgs 66-67, 69 of The Bondage of the Will

1. Highest virtue for Erasmus "being nice." Merges piety and Epicureanism. We can recognize the goodness of God in Nature. Philosophy of Christ.

2. Luther: we cannot be pious on our own and this leads to the cross.

C. The analysis of Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle claims you have to understand the differences between these is because of the points of rhetoric

III. The Issues with Respect to the Will, or Four Mistakes if You Don't Follow Luther.

A. Paul in 1 Corinthians: Not the wisdom of humanity but the wisdom of God

1. Freewill

a. 137 Erasmus defines free will as possibility

b. Luther: free will does not grant possibility but the Gospel which comes to us and allows us to choose God. Romans 3.

2. Freewill defends the honor of God

a. Erasmus: Freewill is necessary, otherwise, God becomes the author of sin

b. Luther: In things below you, you are free. In respect to things above this is not the case. Divine freedom implies human necessity

B. Freewill keeps God from being a puppet-master

Luther: ultimately God is not a puppet-master but in the life of faith one responds.

C. Freewill allows us to use Scripture properly

1. Erasmus: Much scripture says to turn to God

2. Luther: Obligation does not equate with ability, the statement of one who is truly liberated, "I confess my bondage to sin and dependence on God."

 

Theology of glory begins with freewill and binds us to our choices.

Theology of the cross, however, assumes bondage and moves to freedom


Lessons
About
Transcript
  • Dr. Isaacs summarizes the course objectives and lists the recommended textbooks.
  • Luther expressed his views in a way that was shaped by his theology and the culture.

  • Martin Luther was born in Germany in the late 15th century, just after Guttenberg developed his printing press.

  • When Martin Luther posted the 95 theses, his intention was to discuss and debate the misuse of indulgences, but it was interpreted by the church heirarchy as an attack on the power of the papacy.

  • Luther's writings demonstrate his ability to understand and articulate issues that are at the core of the nature of God and man. His theology is distinct from philosophy and consists of many comments on passages in Psalms and Romans.

  • Faith alone justifies. By faith the Christian is made to love God, therefore a person does good works because they cannot remain idle.

  • The work of Christ when he allowed himself to be crucified on the cross, teaches us about God's nature, our nature and our relationship to God.

  • Luther's fourfold sense of scripture focused on historical (literal), allegorical (figurative), tropological (moral), and anagogic (future).

  • Luther's view of the atonement differs from classical views taught during his time and view held by the scholastic tradition.

  • Luther's teaching on justification by faith is central to his theology.

  • Theology of the cross assumes bondage and moves to freedom.

  • Four positions on predestination include the Calvinist, neo-Protestant, intuitu fidei, and Gnesio-Lutherans.

  • Luther's commentary on Galatians is an attempt to set "Law" in its proper setting.

  • The sacraments are an external expression of an internal reality.

  • Luther's teachings on the importance of baptism and arguments for infant baptism.

  • Luther's view of the theological and personal significance of the Lord's Supper.

  • The kingdom of God and secular government have areas of unity and areas of differences.

  • Luther gives a definition of the church and describes characteristics of the church.

  • Luther developed a catechism to help people focus on the foundational beliefs of the Christian faith.

  • Martin Luther's writings can encourage people to pursue their relationship with God on a deeper level.

This course is an introduction to the life and writings of the great German reformer, Martin Luther. There are 20 lectures totaling approximately 18 hours. These lectures were given at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts.

Dr. Gordon Isaac
Martin Luther 
CH643-11
The Bondage of the Will
Lesson Transcript

[00:00:02] Okay, so Luther makes a comment on Ephesians chapter three, verse 17. I pray that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And this is what he said. How then do we have Christ? You cannot have him except in the Gospel in which he is promised to you. And since Christ comes into your heart through the Gospel, He must also be accepted by the heart, as I now believe that he is in the gospel. So I receive him and have him already. So Paul says, I carry Christ in my heart, for he is mine. When we have Christ by true faith, then he causes us to live in such a way that we are strengthened in faith, in such a way that I do these works, which I do for the benefit and good of my neighbor for my Christian name, would not be sufficient. Despite my baptism and my faith if I did not help my neighbors and draw them to faith through my works in order that they may follow me. Then believers, after they have given all glory to Christ, are always remembering to do their neighbor as Christ has done to them in order that they may help the neighbor and everyone else. Thus Christ lives in them and they live for the betterment of their neighbor, giving to everyone a good example of doing all things in love. Let's pause for prayer. O Heavenly Father, give us our daily bread. That is our Lord Jesus Christ who feeds and comforts the soul so that Christ may remain in us eternally and we in Him, and that we may worthily bear the name of Christian as derived from Christ.

[00:02:05] Amen. Okay. Today, we're going to be talking about the bound will or the bondage of the will as our text has been translated. And we're going to be discussing here a little bit of the conflict between Erasmus and Luther. We're going to try to get at some of the precipitating events and some of the issues that range between Luther and Erasmus. And then finally, we're going to try to come down and speak just a little bit of some of the issues with respect to the will that seem to be on the table in this classic Christian debate over this matter. But before we get to that, let me just say that on Monday, I happened to be with a couple of pastors and we were all we discussed a number of things are our meeting wasn't to to discuss Luther or anything like that. But in the course of the conversation I was just reminded of how relevant, how timely discussing this kind of issue really is. Now, one of the pastors was saying, well, he says, you know, my job as pastor, I'm struggling every day just to figure out, you know, what it's going to take for me as pastor to help my people get through the week. And he confessed to us, although I didn't sense any reticence on his part, that really as a pastor, he was pragmatically oriented. If it preaches, I'll say it. What I want to do is help my people, equip them to live a Christian life during the course of the week. And you know what that means for for me as a pastor, that's just what this fellow said. You know, if you're going to try to sit there and talk to me about reform theology or some such thing, I'm just not going to have time to sit and listen to you on that.

[00:03:59] And I was thinking to myself, wow, that's a really interesting confession. I thought, you know, in our pastoral ministry, I trust that your own approach would you you would see yourself as a a scholar pastor, Not that you got to be an egghead. On the contrary, you have to be able to present the truths of the gospel to simple people. I love the way Luther talks about it. When he when he talks about preaching, he says, you know, he he was the preacher in the chapel of Wittenberg, and he had all of these professors coming from the University of Wittenberg. Listen to him preach. This is you know, I don't preach to them. I preach to the common people. And if these high and mighty doctors don't like it, well, the door is open. So, you know, there is this in Luther where he recognizes he is his preaching to the common people. And as pastors, we need to be able to talk the language of laypeople that are working in the world during the week. They they don't necessarily want to become erudite with respect to theological issues. However, every Christian has to be concerned with living life during the week. But here this pastor was saying, well, you know, I'm really pragmatically driven. And I remember also a conversation or actually it was something that a pastor said on a Sunday evening some years ago, big church, you know, one of these megachurches. And the pastor somehow got on to the question of free will or the bound will. And he said, you know, this has been discussed in the history of the church. And, you know, I just don't think either party understood what they were talking about. You know, and I kind of hit my forehead and said, oh, my goodness.

[00:05:39] Very interesting notion here. Here this man is the pastor of a huge church and no doubt on a daily basis comes up against the question of faith and unbelief. And yet he can stand up there and say, this is no big deal. I don't want to discuss it. Obviously, people in the past have debated over this and the acrimony has just been too much. And we just really don't want to have to deal with that. This is a timely issue. There is now currently the feeling among many pastors and many leaders that, you know, some of these issues just aren't worth debating or discussing. I always get a bit suspicious when that kind of thing begins to roll up against me, and I begin to say, you know. Maybe this person is throwing up their hands prematurely. Maybe if we go back to the classic texts, we'll begin to understand what really is at issue here. And that is our reason for reading a book like Bondage of the Will. So I think there's some stuff to talk about here and we'll get underway. This is I have just said all of that by way of preface simply to say that this is an issue that is of critical concern for us today. That's a fact. Do you have free will or is the world bound? Philosophers have discussed this. Theologians have as well. Let's just talk a little bit about the circumstances under which this book was written. The Bondage of the Will was published in December 1525. This came a year after actually was over a year after Erasmus wrote his book against Luther on this topic. His diatribe on the freedom of the will found Luther loathed to respond. Luther was busy with a quite a number of other projects, but Erasmus had been forced into making opposition with Luther, you see, beginning of the Reformation time period.

[00:07:56] Erasmus and Luther were seen to be good buddies. They were just like this. Very close indeed. Why is that? Erasmus wrote a little piece called In Praise of Folly, in which he criticizes the abuses of the church and does so with a scathing intellect and his his scorn for the kind of ignorance of the common priesthood and the obvious monetary abuse within the Roman Catholic Church was a terrible affront to true and pure religion. And so Erasmus takes the high road and he says, You know what we really need here is we need reform in the church big time. We really do need reform. And in order to achieve this, what we need is we need to bring people into to a new level of education. We need to get busy and educate our people so that we can become a college or a Senate of learned people. And we can discuss these important Christian issues and we can see the Christian church emerge as a thinking, believing organization full of piety and respect to the Pope and goodwill toward others. So Erasmus was really quite eloquent in all of this. Luther comes on the stage and he, as you know, posts the 95 theses and then engages in the great tobacco debate with EC in Leipzig in 1519. So really, many of their concerns overlapped at the beginning of the Reformation time period. So if you said the name Erasmus and Luther, they were synonymous with the new theology that was emerging in the 16th century time period. So these these two forces, these two individuals, Luther and Erasmus, were considered big time friends. Now, a great deal of pressure was exerted against Erasmus in order that he might come out against Luther and thus show Luther to be the barbarian that he was.

[00:10:09] And so some of the higher ups began to talk with Erasmus and finally pushed him in that way. He didn't originally want to, but he finally did say, Yes, I will. I'll go on record here. And so he wrote his diatribe on the freedom of the will. Over a year before Luther responded, Luther's friends, I read Erasmus piece, and they were not very happy with what they read. They were very concerned that Erasmus treatise was actually throwing some of the common people into confusion. It was creating confusion in the Netherlands and Cologne Koln, as they say in German, while they themselves were indebted to Erasmus for Rudiments of Faith. They now were very concerned about what was going on. Listen to this little excerpt that came as a letter to Luther. In this time frame. It's written by seven Strasbourg Preachers. Referring to Erasmus. They said, What is he up to? Does he not everywhere brush aside the authority of Scripture and prefer the calm of the Antichrist to the revolutionary character of the Kingdom of Christ? We therefore implore you, for Christ's sake, don't let yourself be appeased by flesh and blood. Give priority to what you once wrote, wrote Erasmus. For the sake of Christ, one must be able to hate one's parents. And which men of letters are not likely to advise for the word belongs to Christ. Out with the trimmings of the Latin language. Away with the hour of learning which dims the praise of Christ, His word saves us. The words of others lead us to ruin. After all, you know how much the Lord has sought to lay on you? How many thousands? Hang on your lips. Being confident that this is the mouth of the Lord. And you also know full well that your service has induced the world to detest whatever is not founded openly in the pronouncement of Scripture.

[00:12:27] So these pastors are urging Luther in this letter to to make response to Erasmus and his diatribe on the freedom of the will. Notice in this letter, the Strasbourg pastors mention a couple of things that we should probably highlight. Notice they talk here about the trimmings of the Latin language. Erasmus was the foremost Latin ist of his day. Latin was the language of theological exchange. And during that time period, you see, there had been a great renewal in the study of the ancient classics, among them Cicero, who was considered to be the most profound writer in the Latin language. There were a whole group of Italians who followed Cicero and his Latin style, and Erasmus, of course, was marvelous in the way that he could use the Latin language. It just flowed. And so here he is that these pastors are recognizing the great ability that Erasmus has in Latin language studies. And he talks here to these pastors, talk here to about men of letters, are not likely to advise us to engage in conflict or battle. And we'll talk about this a little bit further on. But these men of letters that he's talking about are the humanists and the humanist agenda dovetailed, as I've said, with the early agenda of Luther. Well, Luther received this letter in September, or rather in November of 1524, but Luther was really at a place in his work where he was unable to respond to Erasmus, and he continued on with his work. He had other problems on his plate. In the first instance, he was dealing with a cost and cost that, as you might remember, was one of the early and more radical reformers. And he had urged individuals in Wittenberg to, um, to throw out the images in the churches.

[00:14:41] And there had been quite a bit of hubbub there and Luther and Kosh that were in pretty good standoff with respect to things theological. Luther had just completed a big book entitled Against the Heavenly Prophets in January 1525 against Kallstadt and some of the spiritualist reformers. These spiritualists were saying, The spirit. The spirit. And Luther, over and against them, was saying the word, the word. So there was quite a kind of conflict there. I would welcome a paper on Luther and Kallstadt and their their standoff. That would be a good topic. It would get you into some good stuff. And then after in January 1525, he completes this book against Kallstadt, and then he had to turn it once to the publication of his lectures on Deuteronomy. This was a wearying task that stretched out over a long period of time. He had to do this, he says in a letter to one of his friends at the The court. I'm forced to finish Deuteronomy so that the printers don't have to take a loss. And so he was busy putting together his lectures on Deuteronomy. And then in the meantime, this was a critical year because the peasants revolt erupted during this year and Luther had his hands full. And as you may or may not know, he wrote a number of treatises addressing that issue. So there's a great deal of up. Frau in Saxony during this time period, and he was hard at work on different kinds of issues in April, common areas. One of his friends was beset by problems and he could hardly wait for Luther's response to Erasmus. And Melanchthon wrote, I notice that the response has been begun and hope, therefore, that it will soon be finished for him.

[00:16:54] That is Luther. It is particularly true of MSU. Pontus well begun, half done. But things had to be put off because the peasant revolt had reached Wittenberg, and Luther was preoccupied with that critical issue for quite some time. Finally, in September of 1525, Nicholas Housman came with a question. And Luther replied, Do meantime do meanwhile what you will. I'm fully absorbed, refuting Erasmus. And the next day he wrote to his friend at court. I'm completely in orbit around Erasmus and the free will and will take pains not to concede at any point where he has said something correctly. In fact, he has said hardly anything correctly. But you pray the Lord that he support me so that my work may be to his praise. Amen. Finally, Luther was fired up, and in a rather short compass of time, he wrote a rather complicated and rather thick volume on a not so very easy topic, namely the bound will. It was completed and it was off the press by the end of December. It was a book pulsating with excitement over events of the year 1525. It also breathe the air of being free again to address central issues in theology. The reader can almost sense in this in this book the passion and forcefulness of Luther's formulations. Both Erasmus and Luther give their best in this and their respective polemics. According to Heinrich Braun, come rank rate among the greatest documents of intellectual history. Only a common and penetrating analysis then can finally be given. So the events of 1525 also we what we didn't mention is that Luther takes up residence. This is this is the year, if I'm not mistaken, in which he gets married. And so he's beginning a new life as a married man.

[00:19:15] And of course, there were some of the reformers, some of his friends, Melanchthon and others who were somewhat scandalized by the fact that Luther had gotten married. Why Luther? Now, when things are really bearing down upon us, when the fight is really engaging and heating up, you go and get yourself married. Almost as though this was going to prejudice the the forward movement of the Reformation project. And Luther in response says, you know, I am simply doing what God has created us all for. So I want to be found doing what I'm created for when Christ comes again. If indeed this is the end of time as it may well be. And the devil is exerting more power against the Reformation forces. Then I really do need to be found doing what God has made me for. An interesting insight into his understanding of Christian life. So we have the writing and the publishing of the bondage of the will. And this piece then rockets out into the Reformation exchange. And we have a very interesting piece on our hands now that one of the things that needs to be noticed is that there is indeed sharp rhetoric that is exchanged between these two very gifted rhetoricians. Well, Luther says, you know, I don't use the same kind of Latin that Cicero does. I certainly have the content. Luther, in his writing and bondage of the world, says, you know, he's very much less gifted than his opponent, Erasmus. But all through this piece, Bondage of the will you find that there are times when Luther just veritably takes off on wing when he goes into his description of various theological issues? Erasmus, for his part, is no mean rider himself. And so these two range back and forth and there is a powerful exchange of rhetoric.

[00:21:24] Notice, however, the way that Erasmus perceives in his line of argumentation, Erasmus wants to argue in a particular manner. He reminds the reader briefly of the laborious treatment of freedom of the will, which has been expanded from antiquity to the present. And he speaks about this as being a tangled labyrinth. And instead of taking up this subject, his actual opponent, he speaks about certain people who who have spoken about this kind of off topic. And we find that Erasmus declares himself neither a skeptic in principle nor a blind believer in authority. Instead, he sees skepticism and belief in authority as two opposite possibilities open to anyone, according to his insight, who would avoid making a decision on a problem difficult to decide. He finds this mode of thinking preferable to that of those certain others who, as he says, twist whatever they read in the Scriptures into an assertion of an opinion that they have embraced once for all. And he claims that these individuals are like young men who love a young girl so moderately that they imagine they see their beloved wherever they turn. Or a much better example, like two combatants who, in the heat of a quarrel, turn whatever is at hand into a missile, whether it be a jug or a dish, he adds. Who will learn anything fruitful from this discussion beyond the fact that each leaves the encounter of this matter by the other's filth? If anybody ascribes his ironic disposition to a lack of intellect or knowledge, let him do so. And yet it may be permitted even to the less gifted to discuss with the more aptly gifted. If for no other reason than to learn. Erasmus seems to say that, look, what I want to do in my treatise is I want to I want to think in this impassioned state about this very difficult and problematic, this controversial issue.

[00:23:42] So I want to practice my art as a humanist thinker, and I want to reserve judgment. And I don't want to have to research where I don't have to. So he holds off and he wants to to hold his position as as one who is going to reserve judgment on this particular issue. So Erasmus calls for prudence, and that really characterizes the approach that Erasmus sets forward here. Now, then we find, in contrast to the way that Erasmus begins his discussion of the issue. Luther, who asserts a rather different point of view. Luther insists on assertion, claiming that if we're going to get to the bottom of this issue, we really need to make assertions. Luther is not going to stand back with with a skeptical point of view. Weighing this argument, winning that argument, Luther, is going to say, look, my job as a Christian is to assert things. If we don't believe anything, then we are not Christians. That's essentially what Luther says in his rhetorical approach to this exchange. Notice how Luther goes after this thing. If you have your if you have your edition of Bondage of the Will here, you can open. Page 66. Luther begins with a discussion of the necessity of assertions. Notice that he quotes Erasmus here to start with. Well, let's just start there. At the very beginning, he says. First, I would run through some of the points in your preface where you make some attempt to prejudice our cause and embellish your own. Now, notice the language here. This is the very language of rhetoric. Rhetoric in the ancient world is the art of persuasive speech. And there are very specific laws or canons which determine how one proceeds in setting forward a proper argument.

[00:26:02] And this is one method by which a defense attorney, which is how rhetoric was developed. Augustine himself was a teacher of radical, as you might remember. As a defense attorney, you would use. You would employ certain kinds of strategies in order to make your case. And one way is to prejudice the case of the other by asserting certain kinds of things, setting them forward. To start with, I observe that elsewhere you censure me for being over bold and making assertions so that here in this book you say that you find so little satisfaction in assertions that you would readily take up the skeptics position wherever the inviolable authority of holy Scripture and the church's decisions permit. So you gladly submit your judgment to these authorities in all that they lay down, whether you follow it or not. That is the outlook which appeals to you. This is a direct quotation right out of Erasmus. That's what Erasmus has said. He said that he's going to take up the skeptics position. Very interesting. And Luther says, you know, ultimately, that's not something we can do. Notice here on page 67, this little passage where Luther goes after this, he says, okay, now the skeptics and academics from the company of us Christians let us have men who will assert men twice as inflexible as very stoics. Take the apostle Paul. How how often does he call for that full assurance, which is simply an assertion of conscience, of the highest degree of certainty and conviction in Rome. 1010 In Romans ten, he calls it confession with the mouth. Confession is made under salvation. Christ said, Whosoever confesses me before met him. Will I confess before my father? And then Luther goes on a bit, a little bit further.

[00:28:00] Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. Why? The Holy Spirit is given to Christians from heaven in order that He may glorify Christ and in them confess Him even unto death. And is this not assertion to die for what you confess and assert? Again, the spirit asserts to such purpose that he breaks in upon the whole world and convinces it of sin, as if challenging it to battle. And so you can see how Luther proceeds with his form of rhetoric. Harassments proceeds. As a skeptic, he wants to bring together a number of different scriptures that bear on this topic. Kind of lay that out on the table and kind of sort through that until we come to a consensus. As the Senate of learned people in order to arrive at a decision. But as Erasmus continues to set forward his position, it's quite clear that he will never come down to a decision on this matter as a as a point of fact. Erasmus claims that the whole discussion over the free will is really not essential. It really doesn't matter. From Erasmus point of view. Luther gets really upset with this way of speaking. Let me draw your attention to a critical passage in Luther's presentation here. The bottom of page 69. In your text, you might want to just make a little star by the side. However you make your notations for what's important here. I consider this to be an important little passage. Allow me to spend a moment or two reading through this the bottom of page 69 and then on 70. In a word, what you say comes to this that you do not think it matters a scrap, what anyone believes anywhere so long as the world is at peace.

[00:29:50] You would be happy for anyone whose life, reputation, well, for welfare or influence was at stake to emulate him. Who said if they affirm, I affirm. If they deny, so do I. And you would encourage him to treat Christian doctrines as no better than the views of human philosophers. About which, of course, it is stupid to wrangle and fight and assert, since nothing results but bad feelings and breaches of outward peace. What is above us does not concern us. That is your motto phrase right out of Erasmus. So you intervene to stop our battles. You call a halt to both sides and urge us not to fight any more over issues that are so stupid and sterile. That, I repeat, is the meaning of your words. And I think you know what I'm driving at here, my dear Erasmus. But as I said that the words go for the moment. I acquit your heart. But you must write no more in this strain. Fear the spirit of God who searches the reins and heart and is not deceived by stupid speeches. I say this in order that from now on, you may stop accusing our side of obstinacy and stubbornness. By so doing, you merely let us see that in your heart. You cherish a Lucian or some other hog of Epicurus herd, who, because he is an atheist himself, finds and all who believe in God and confess him a subject for secret amusement. Leave us free to make assertions and to find in assertions our satisfaction and delight. And you may applaud your skeptics and academics till Christ calls you to the Holy Spirit as no skeptic. And the things that he has written on Our hearts are not doubts or opinions, but assertions surer and more certain that sense in life itself.

[00:31:48] Interesting phrase, isn't it, the way he goes about this toward the end, The Holy Spirit is no skeptic. So you see the radical difference in terms of the way Luther and Erasmus approach this exchange. Now, of course, much more could be said about this. The difference between Erasmus and Luther, and perhaps it should be said here that both Luther and Erasmus agree in their objection to Paganism. Luther claims that there is a vivid contrast between pagan wisdom and divine wisdom, and we need to be on guard against mixing these two approaches. Erasmus, however, interestingly, was convinced that education establishes morality and that the best educators were the eloquent pagans of antiquity. This meant that Christians not only could study the ancient authors, but must appropriate pagan learning because Christ himself had ordained it to his glory. So you have two very different approaches here. Erasmus in some ways is Christian izing the ancient pagans. You're saying? Hanno They're the best teachers in terms of of wisdom. And Christ actually is kind of on this continuum of wisdom. Once we come to Christ, then the teaching of the ancient pagans moves us forward to a complete view of of the world and its goodness. Luther Or rather, Erasmus identifies with the with the philosophy of Epicurus. According to Erasmus, if we speak the truth, none are greater epicureans than those Christians that live a pious life. This surprising statement is entered into evidence by Erasmus. He says nothing is more wretched than a guilty conscience. And on the other hand, nothing is more pleasurable than a good conscience. As Erasmus argues, a good conscience can be achieved only through piety. And one when. When one lives piously, we are told one lives a truly pleasant existence.

[00:34:10] True pleasures can only come from the good that is the love of Christ. Therefore, truly pious Christians enjoy a life of true pleasures and can rightly be called true epicureans. So you can see for that or for Erasmus. One of the things that he's going to want in true Christian life. Argumentation, strife, fighting are disallowed. The highest virtue in some ways is to be nice. Thus you can begin to understand why. For Erasmus, he would say, Well, things above us really have no concern. Talking, discussing, fighting about the issue of the bound will or the freedom of the will is therefore quite unnecessary for the carrying out of Christian life. We find then that Luther and Erasmus couldn't be further apart on this particular issue because Luther is saying, Well, you know, it's not a matter of taking pagan wisdom and just advancing it a little bit and saying Christ is the greatest teacher and adding a bit of knowledge to the ancients and then moving along in life in terms of piety and doing good works and in trying to achieve a good conscience. What Luther would say is a good conscience. It's never possible to arrive at that, apart from Christ as absolute savior. And so Luther and Erasmus are caught in a mighty battle here. On the one hand, Luther is describing the difference between a theologian of glory and a theologian of the cross. What Erasmus is basically saying is, look, we can recognize true Christianity in the goodness of nature as it exists. The pagans, after all, teach us wisdom. We add to that a little bit more teaching from Christ, and then we're able to see the goodness of God in nature as it is, and we're simply perfecting that.

[00:36:10] That's the process of salvation. Luther says, Wait a minute. No, we don't see the goodness of God in nature and a little bit of piety as we go along, rather, the whole process of understanding who God is and seeing him in the world you're seeing in the cross, the theologian of glory does not recognize, along with the apostle, the crucified and hidden God alone, He sees and speaks of God's glorious manifestation among the heathen, how his invisible nature can be known from the things which are visible and how he is present and powerful in all things everywhere. This theologian of glory, however, learns from Aristotle that the object of the will is the good, and the good is worthy to be loved, while the evil, on the other hand, is worthy of hate. He learns that the God and exceedingly lovable. Luther, in writing those words, did not write this description with Erasmus in mind, but he may as well have done so for the import of Erasmus, and his point of view are simply that Erasmus argues for the glorious manifestation of God in the world, that the object of the will is the good and that God is the highest good. According to Erasmus, the contemplation of the world reveals the works of God, producing a great pleasure of mind, which allows omnipotence, wisdom and goodness of the Creator to be adored. Luther, as you've already known from our previous studies, is dead set against that. Now, it's interesting. In a recent book, Marjorie O'Rourke. O'Rourke, Boyle. Marjorie O'Rourke. Boyle says that one thing you need to notice about this rhetorical exchange between Erasmus and Luther Erasmus is using deliberative rhetoric. He is doing what is otherwise known as a collapsed seal. He is gathering together certain evidences, and he is weighing this as a skeptic, as it were, standing back and saying, well, now what is the argument say? He is doing so so that he doesn't have to take a position so that he can avoid confrontation with another.

[00:38:14] This, I think, goes along quite nicely with his view of Christianity, which, as he described it, is the philosophy of Christ. Luther, as you know, is dead set against philosophy as a way for knowing God. And so Luther takes a very different kind of rhetoric in hand. And he is using the grand style of rhetoric in which he is making assertions and he is setting forward his position. Marjorie O'Rourke Boyle claims that you have to understand this exchange between these two on the basis of different choices of rhetoric according to the canons of rhetoric. And on this basis, we see that the two in many ways are talking on two different levels. And so in some ways they pass one another and don't really hit. And that's usually the way it is to when you have two people that really disagree over something you find there, you have different paradigms. If you've ever had a fight with a good friend over something or a spouse, you recognize that they really do see this thing differently, you know? And so it's not simply that, you know, we're talking past one another and, you know, we just haven't worked hard enough at this. No, there are some very different points of view being described here. Okay. So that's the rhetoric of the exchange. Of course, one of the things that comes up every time I teach this course is I usually have some students that are just absolutely offended with the way that, you know, Luther can throw around his terms, noticing that one of the passage that we that we read about harassment he calls evolution one of the pigs from the herd of Epicurus. You know what he's talking about here. He's saying, look, Erasmus has a theory, a theology that says Christ is the greatest epicurean of all.

[00:40:13] Well, this is really a theological argument that Luther is making against Erasmus. There you go. You've done it. You've wedded theology with philosophy in such a way that you you've rendered Christ no savior at all, but simply yet another of a long list of great philosophers or great teachers. And so when he calls him that, there's a theological reason behind it. Oh, yeah, it's sharp. It's it's biting, no question about it. They didn't have the same compunctions we do in our politically correct age. You see, we claim that we're tolerant, but what that means is that we won't really engage each other in earnest dialog over something. So our situation is very different. We have our own set of problems and they don't happen to be the same problems of the 16th century in this particular instance. Now, the issues with respect to the will or form of states, if you don't follow Luther I just thought I'd kind of throw that in here. Well, let's see if we can get in the next ten or 12 minutes. Let's just see if we can get at a few of the the issues that are really going on here. Bondage of the will. First of all, I think it needs to be said that, you know, it's sometimes thrown out there that really, you know, what's going on here is that Erasmus is arguing in a polite way and he is arguing from the the point of of freedom. And he's the one who's really optimistic. He is the one who really can set forward theology in a way which is which is consistent with an entire worldview that sees the great flow of humanity and the good of the ancient teachers and all of that kind of thing.

[00:41:58] And what we really need to do here is make some changes in the abuses of the church so he can really, you know, speak positively in all of this. On the other hand, what you have is this Luther, who seems to be kind of cranky and angry. You know, he's always throwing out these things. And, you know, so really Erasmus is is speaking positively and Luther is speaking in a pessimistic way, in a negative way. That's how this argument is sometimes characterized. But I want to suggest to you that that's really not the case. There's something else that's going on underneath the surface. And in order to try to tie our discussion today with what we've done elsewhere in our course, we would have to say that Luther, in a trenchant way, indeed even systematically is attempting to set forward a theology of the cross from beginning to end, and even here applying it to the issue of human will and in a greater degree over the doctrine of God, for ultimately when we take a look at bondage of the will, this treatise is not simply a will, a treatise about the will, is it? This is a treatise that deals with who is God? How do we come into relationship with what is what is our struggle with God? And in part, there's some there's some wild passages that put us. Face to face with our worst dreams with respect to God is not true. A God who is hidden. Not only that, but a God who might indeed damn people. Now there is an image of God. Get over that one. And Luther essentially is. Is writing this treatise. To call a thing the way it really is. It might be possible to talk about God without talking about damnation and only talk about salvation or some such.

[00:43:53] But Luther's saying that's not realistic, isn't it? Or is it just not realistic? We've got to come to terms with the fact that we live in a world which is fallen full of wretched stuff. And finally, there's this word in scripture that says there are some who may not be saved. Now, that's an incredible thought. And it puts us at odds with this one that we call God. Now, then, how do we reconcile that? How do we speak about the doctrine of God and therefore the doctrine of God? And how how do we as human beings take our place in it? So the discussion of the will is engaged. Now, I want to suggest to you that, yes, Luther does indeed talk about the bound will, but he does so precisely because Scripture itself does. Rather than talking about the wisdom of the world or human wisdom. What does he say? What does the Apostle Paul say? You know, if you want to know what Luther says, it's not a bad idea to be reminded of what the Apostle Paul says. Now, at the beginning of the that very important epistle to the Corinthians, he says this. This is the Apostle Paul, for the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God, for it is written. I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence of the intelligent. I will frustrate. This really applies directly to how Luther is arguing in this treatise. Where is the wise man? The Apostle Paul goes on directly against Erasmus. Erasmus is talking about all the the wise men from the past and is talking about the philosophy of Christ. Luther is saying, No, we don't preach the wisdom of humanity, but God's wisdom which comes in the cross.

[00:45:51] Now then it is precept. One of the presuppositions of the freewill defense of God is this free will grants possibility. This Erasmus would claim that free will really is the part is a possibility. Now in your in your text of bondage of the will, you'll find Erasmus defining free will in the following way on on page 137. I conceive of free will in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same Erasmus has in mind then a will which is in a neutral position. It can either jump toward the good or it can jump toward the evil, or that which is sinful. Erasmus views freewill as possibility. He would say that, Look, if you exercise your free will, then you can either direct yourself toward the good. And that, of course, is what Erasmus is urging. All this you look toward God, allow your free will to attach itself to the ultimate good. Live a life that's pious and that's the road to salvation. That's what he says. And he says that the free will can do that. Now, what Luther is going to say is this free will does not grant possibility. On the contrary, there really is no such thing as free will with respect to things that are above us. Luther would say against this here it says Free will grants possibility against that. Luther would say the gospel grants possibility. It's not the human free will that allows for possibility, but it's the gospel which comes to us, which allows us for the first time to say yes to God. You see, the problem is outlined quite nicely by the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter three.

[00:47:51] He comes up to the end of that incredible passage saying, No one has sought after God. No, not what we are all turned aside. He says that is the human predicament. If we're to follow the Apostle Paul, we have to recognize there is no such thing as free will. Or we could say it this way. Yes, we did have free will, but we've used it already and we said no to God. It's only when the gospel is spoken to us, it enters our ears. Christ takes residents up in our hearts that we then finally, for the first time, can say yes to God, out of out of our heart. And so Luther would say, No, it's our free will, the grants, possibilities, the gospel, because it's the gospel that finally operates on us in such a way to turn us to the true God. Secondly, what Erasmus will say is that the doctrine of free will is necessary. Otherwise God becomes the author of sin. The doctrine of free will is necessary, otherwise God becomes the author. So the free will is really a defense of God. I mean, we talk about the free will, a defense of God to describe this action on the part of Christians. We don't want to say that God is the author of sin, do we? I mean, who wants to? Who wants to say that? If you take a look at the scripture, it says that God is good, God is true, God is patient, is kind. He is. He is the one who shows us loving kindness throughout all generations. We don't want to say that he's the author of Sin. Now, if you say that the will is bound and that we are stuck in sin, the way to get God off the hook is to say no.

[00:49:44] Well, you know, it's not that, you know, our wills are bound. It's that we said no to God, and free will is necessary in order to say that. I mean, does it make any sense for us to be bound to sin and then for God just to turn around and say, well, you bunch of sinners, if we didn't have the freedom not to do it, then certainly we can't be claimed to be responsible for this problem. So according to Erasmus, free will defends the honor of God. But what Luther wants to say in response to this is that bondage is not a problem of logic, but it is a problem of one's affections. Bondage is not a problem in logic. But but bondage is a problem of our affections. Bondage is a reaction to God's absolute rule over our concrete lives. The bondage of the will is not a logical deduction from the doctrine of God. That's not the question. Luther likes to point out the fact, Look, you are free. If you want to go to a movie today, you can if you want to, you know, go into Beverly and get yourself a big bunch of fried onions. You can if you want to do whatever you want to do, you can do it. You're free to do it in things below you. You're free. You can get married or remain single. You can choose to buy a house or not buy a house. You can go to Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary or some other seminary. You're free to do those things. And whether you're a determinist or a libertarian doesn't matter. You're free to do it. That with respect to things above us, we are not free. So finally, for Luther, what you find is that divine freedom implies human necessity.

[00:51:41] Divine freedom implies human necessity. On page 198 to find Luther arguing some of these kinds of things. First man serves sin of necessity. Nevertheless, since it is granted that free will cannot will good. And that is the kind of free will that the Dear Tribe undertook to prove then the goodness of a long suffering. God does not make it any better, but necessarily makes it worse unless in God's mercy the Spirit is joined to it so that all things still take place by necessity as far as we are concerned. Second, God appears to be just as merciless in bearing with us in as long suffering as He is thought to appear. When he when we proclaim that he deliberately hardens according to his own inscrutable will, for since he sees that free will cannot will good, but grows worse, as in long suffering he bears with it. He appears in this very long suffering to show the greatest cruelty and to find delight in our misery. Notice these images that they are that that Luther is bringing up. He could remedy it, if he will, and could cease to bear with it if he willed. Indeed, he could not bear with it unless he did well, who shall compel him against his will? In other words, what Luther is saying is that, look, God by definition is in charge of the universe. He is saying both good and evil ultimately have to be ascribed to his name. So that when you say that if you well, well, let's just posit free will in order to get God off the hook. He's not the author of sin. That ultimately doesn't help. Because if you see sin in the world and God is the creator of those individuals that do those good things and those bad things, finally, in the ultimate sense, God is responsible for it anyway.

[00:53:41] So to set up a free will defense of God in this situation doesn't really get God off the hook. Yeah, there is a sense in which he's saying these things ultimately must be ascribed to the inscrutable God. But we know God through Jesus Christ. And how is it that this split in our image of God? On the one hand, we know from Scripture that he is good and gracious. God is the creator of the universe. And yet on the other hand, we see the terrible things that happen in this world, the loss of human life, the blasphemy, the, you know, the ruination of families, the wars and destruction, all this kind of thing. And if you say that God is God and he is all powerful, then in some way you have to reconcile these two images of God that appear in the world. And he says that is possible through faith. So anyway, the freewill defense of God attempts to defend the honor of God. But Luther is saying, look, it's not that easy and it won't work. Bondage is a reaction to God as he is ruler over this universe and thus ruler over our concrete lives. What happens here is we negotiate for a theology of little bits. I have a little bit of freedom. God does the majority of stuff. I've got a little bit of freedom and that's how we run our theology. But what Luther is saying, no, let's not do a theology of little bits. Let's do a theology that flat out God alone works salvation in order to win us entirely from the heart. Not so that we can he can have a little bit of us here, a little bit of us there. But God must redo us, put us to death, and bring us up to new life and resurrection in order to achieve salvation.

[00:55:39] And so Luther is not satisfied with talking about free will in this way in order to make a defense of God's honor or name. And in order to talk about freedom. Because the because freedom comes in the gospel. Free will keeps God from being a puppet master. The doctrine of free will is necessary to release us from an unjust God who makes decisions for us or makes us mere puppets. One of the things that Luther wants to say is, Look, you know, in free will you claim that we have free will either to accept or to reject the grace of God? But if that's the case, then it's not really grace. If that's the case, then it's not really from the God that we worship. He is saying that ultimately God is not a puppet master. God wins us and we are not one apart from our willingly yielding ourselves up to that God of life. But it's not a function of the free will. The old Adam must be put to death. It's only in the life of faith that I respond. And Luther wants to get at this problem by saying, Look, the the solution to the problem is not to posit these different virtues of freedom of the will, but rather to preach to individuals in such a way that they will come to faith in Christ. Free will allows us to use Scripture properly. This is another argument that Erasmus use, he says, Listen, all throughout Scripture there are places that say, Turn to God and he will turn toward you. It's only on the basis of free will then, that we can understand these passages properly. Luther's retort in response is, No, that's simply not the case. Law does not.

[00:57:33] Grant possibility. Obligation does not imply ability. In other words, if I tell you, I'll be wonderful. It's your job just to be wonderful. Be wonderful. You're obligated to be wonderful. Well, what happens if you're not wonderful? Do you have the ability to be wonderful? I don't know. I'm sure all of you are wonderful in your own way. So maybe this is a bad example. But, you know, if. If you're told be perfect or turn to the Lord, when in point of fact, Paul has already said no one seeks after God. No, not one. What does that say about law? The Apostle Paul in Romans chapter five says the law came in to increase sin. Law does not imply that we have the ability to fulfill it. So in all of these arguments, what Luther is trying to say is, look, free will is not the starting point. The starting point for Christian proclamation is to understand that we are all bound in sin, that the only way that we can be released from sin is by the preaching, the gospel, which is our first possibility. So that when we in the Christian church confess in the liturgy, if indeed you go to a liturgical church and even if you don't from time to time, you are probably want to say, Lord, I am a sinner, please forgive me. When we say that we are bound in sin and cannot escape it on our own. That is the statement of one who is truly liberated. It's interesting that, you know, Augustine says that the one who claims they are not bound is really the sign in the evidence of one who has a mortal sickness. And so it is you see that Luther argues in this sort of a manner and really Luther is arguing out of a positive stance.

[00:59:33] He recognized the very seriousness of sin, which the Apostle Paul does. But then he argues point by point that actually it's only when you come to understand this notion of the bound will that you can really move into the freedom that the gospel holds. A theology of glory begins with free will. A theology of glory begins with free will and binds us to our choices. The theology of glory begins with freewill and binds us to our choices. Because, you see, if you agree with Erasmus that you've got free will, then it's up to you. You've got to choose Jesus. You got to decide for him. Where's the assurance of your salvation? It rests and resides in your free will. And from Luther's point of view, there can be no assurance if that's the case, because our wills are variable subject to change. There's only one who is immutable and finally trustworthy, and that is God himself, for it's only God himself that can do this work in our hearts and minds and lives. A Theology of the Cross, however. And this is where Luther's coming from. A theology of the cross, however, assumes bondage and moves to freedom to get that the theology of glory begins with free will and binds us to our choices. It's up to you. Out of the frying pan into the fire. A theology of the cross assumes bondage and moves to freedom. And that's what Luther attempting to do in this treatise.